Jp Calderone <exarkun at divmod.com> writes:
> Michael Hudson wrote:
>> James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> writes:
>>>IMO classes ought to actually appear in __builtin__ if they claim they
>>>are defined there. Doing otherwise breaks reflection, as you have to
>>>add a special case for these class names to use the appropriate object
>>>from the types module instead. Thoughts? If it isn't desirable to have
>>>these names appear in __builtin__, perhaps their '__module__' should
>>>be changed to another module where they are defined?
>> Such as? There really isn't a module where e.g. GeneratorType is
>> defined.
>>
>
> Seems perfectly reasonable and useful to add GeneratorType and
> others to the types module. I have code, for example, like this,
> in a couple places:
Well, it's already there, but types.GeneratorType.__name__ is
'generator'... it could be changed to 'GeneratorType', I guess.
Cheers,
mwh
--
. <- the point your article -> .
|------------------------- a long way ------------------------|
-- Cristophe Rhodes, ucam.chat
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4